What exists, let us call it X. Then X is whatever it is, but what any apparatus of cognition (for example, a human mind) will cognize it to be, will also depend on that apparatus of cognition. No apparatus of cognition sees what is actually existing as it really is but only from its own unique perspective and limitations. Because all apparatuses are more or less different from one another to different degrees (they can be similar but can never be the same), so X will be cognized differently by different cognizers; and no one will know what X is . That is the relation of all cognizers to what is actually existing or happening.

The crucial point here is to remember that whatever is actually existing is X and not a table, a chair, an atom or a molecule etc. because a chair or molecule etc. is what results after the cognitive activity of that particular cognizer from his own unique perspective which is different in varying degrees from the perspectives of all other cognizers in the universe.

The reason why human beings in everyday life seem to have similar views of tables, chairs and mountains etc. is that because their cognitive apparatuses are similar enough to each other to reach at a working consensus. This may not be so between different species or between proto humans, humans and post humans or between humans and some other unknown kinds of life in the universe.

Anything which anyone can know is relative to him and from his unique perspective. All knowing is perspectival and anything which humans know is known only from human perspective. The universe which human scientists know is human universe and not what actually exists or is actually happening.

So the huge mistake in common thinking is this: When someone perceives “a chair”, he (the knower, perceiver or cognizer etc.) jumps to the conclusion that what exists there is a chair and that the chair has an absolute existence of its own independently of him and that he is a mere spectator of the scene and has no part in making the scene.

By object, I mean a physical object like a table,a chair, sun or moon etc.

By subject, I mean an observer, perceiver, knower or cognizer etc.

What is a physical object?

Let us consider the room where you are sitting in right now. How many objects are in this room? Do you count a table as one object? Why not the four legs of the table as four objects and the top of the table as one object? So then there are five objects. Why not each atom in the table as one object? Then the table is not one object but trillions of objects. Does it depend on how the cognizer chooses to look at it? If instead of a human cognizer, the cognizer is a mouse, how will the mouse divide the room in to separate objects in its mind? Probably not like a human.

If a man from some jungle tribe who has never come out from there, is brought in to this room, what objects he will make in his mind from this room? Right now the objects you are making from this room are also in your mind perhaps? I mean all what ever is there is there but dividing the totality in to separate objects is done by the cognizer or the subject.

All what ever is there in the universe or multiverse or total reality is what ever it is but each cogniser or subject divides it according to cognitive faculties he has. Most humans agree with each other about what is the right way to divide the world (universe, multiverse, or all that exists) because they all have very similar cognitive faculties. But conscious beings of very different type of cognitive faculties who may have some faculties missing which humans have but may have some other very advanced faculties of other types which humans can not even imagine or conceive of may be making objects from this same reality extremely differently. There may be existing things in this room which no human (including human scientist) can cognize. There may be happening events in this room which no human can even conceive of because humans do not have the cognitive faculties required to percieve those events.

Perhaps the worldascognized by humans exists only in the minds of humans and is not objectively existing ie. humans cognizing the world as having tables, chairs, stars and moon etc. , or having molecules, atoms and sub atomic particles or strings or waves etc. Other conscious beings may cognize the world differently. Perhaps post humans (what humans may evolve in to) will cognize the world in a way which present day human scientists can not even imagine or conceive of.

Also you really can not know from the point of view of any body else except your own, you can try to think empathecally and imaginatively from somebody else’s point of view but it is finally your own mind which is thinking this and the limitations of your own mind still apply.

When some one says the world is made of matter or is physical, it seems to be a huge claim as to the nature of reality or existence which seems to be rather arrogant like the claim that the world has been created for humans or that the whole universe revolves around the Earth ( Do not forget that these claims seemed very reasonable at one time) . I make no claim of knowing as to the nature of all that exists whether it is physical or mental or some thing else.

I am inclined to think that all physical objects are at least partly subject (cognizer) dependent.

Mysticism means different things to different people.

I do not describe myself as mystical. I am not a follower of any religion at all. Though I guess that I have some things common with mysticism. But I completely accept the law of non-contradiction without any reservations. If I am “mystical” then my mysticism does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Perhaps empiricism is wrong basically. Perhaps perspectivism (relativism ?) is a more sound way of understanding what really exists and what is merely your own mind’s projection.